On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:45:41AM -0400, David Nalley wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Chip Childers > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:27:00AM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013, at 08:28 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > >> > Before we get to this, I have a broader question: Do we want to move > >> > the docs to their own git repo? We manage them with different rules, > >> > especially WRT code freeze and whatnot. This translation question just > >> > adds to the logic to pull the repo apart. > >> > >> This came up once before, and initially I was against having a different > >> repo - but we've tried it for a while, and maybe it makes sense to break > >> it out. > >> > >> Two questions: > >> > >> - one, are we still going to bundle docs into the tarball for release? > > > > I'd propose that they are actually a distinct download / artifact for > > the release. I'd procedurally release them at the same time as the > > source artifacts, but I don't think that there's a ton of value in > > bundling them with the source. The build processes are different, and > > packaging doesn't pull in the docs anyway. Really, our docs are being > > published to our website as the primary target for distribution right > > now anyway... > > > >> > >> - two, there was a proposal about using docs as tooltips, how would this > >> affect that if the two are separate trees? > > > > Unsure where that proposal went... and frankly I'm not sure I agree > > with that approach anyway. > > > > That proposal moved forward and the first generation is in 4.1 iirc. > That said it's not in the state originally proposed, and I've been > struggling to get answers on how it is going to be handled in the > future. > If this is a veto from you, lets stop folks from working on it. > > --David >
Not a veto ATM. Let's take this to a separate thread to discuss.
